Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Cecil Bisshopp, 10th Baronet (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Bishopp baronets. Merge at editorial discretion. (non-admin closure) ミラP 16:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Sir Cecil Bisshopp, 10th Baronet
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Taking this to AfD again to resolve a dispute. It had a good AfD disucssion in 2013 and was kept. Since then it has had a notability tag applied, which I tried to remove based on the AfD. feels notability is still not proven and has restored it. Bringing it here to avoid it being tagged ad infiniteum, hopefully we can get a decision. Boleyn (talk) 07:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

*Requesting speedy keep - Under WP:CSK 2.d - No deletion rationale is presented. This is not an AfD issue. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and do not speedily discard as requested by User:Sirfurboy. Even though I understand his formalist approach, I prefer to have this deletion discussion to once and for all solve the notability issue, as User:Boleyn proposes.
 * This person's notability is the fact that he was a clergyman. IMHO that in itself is not enough to justify a standalone article. He is mentioned in the list of archdeacons of Malta, and IMHO that is enough, and he doesn't warrant an article of his own.
 * On a sidenote, I see he is mentioned in Template:Archdeacons in the Diocese in Europe, even though the article does not mention that he was an archdeacon. If the article is kept, that should be taken care of. Debresser (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - very well. Although the nom. has presented no valid deletion rationale, has done so, and thus I have considered this. I took a look at the previous deletion discussion and am persuaded by the previous nominator's argument. The subject was a clergyman and a baronet. He may have been an archdeacon, but this is unclear. Nevertheless only bishops are considered notable by virtue of their position alone. Likewise a baronet is not notable for being a baronet alone. The sources uncovered are all of a level and depth one would assume for a clergyman and baronet, but as the previous nominator noted, they do not establish notability for a biographical article. This subject does not meet WP:GNG. Arguments in the previous AfD failed to address this question of what specifically makes this clergyman/baronet notable. One of the previous arguments was that the page should be kept for now, and allowed to sit until September 2013 to see if it could be improved, and failing that it could come back to AfD. It is now 7.5 years beyond that deadline and the article is unimproved. Although deletion is not for cleanup, it is my view that it is not improved because there is nothing more to be said about the subject. He is not notable. He does not receive significant coverage in reliable sources, except for the reason that he was a baronet and clergyman. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Let me restate what I said in 2013. The article's subject was a clergyman born of the gentry who died under 30. He was apparently well-liked by his peers, enough to justify a wordy encomium in The Gentleman's Magazine on his death. That's it. There's no significant coverage. Plenty of people looked in 2013 and came up empty. Barring the introduction of new sources this article will never be more than genealogical stub: he was born, he took holy orders, he died. Whatever the attitude was in the mid-Victorian era, modern scholarship doesn't appear to have taken any notice of this man. Mackensen (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Bishopp baronets. This fellow isn't notable, but the family/baronetcy and a number of members are. The 10th baronet is mentioned in several Wikipedia articles and it will be frustrating for readers to not have this information available, although it's not notable enough for a standalone article.Jahaza (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Jahaza makes a good point, redirect to Bishopp baronets would be WP:USEFUL to readers. Boleyn (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, there are many names in that article without redirects. Just because we had an article, doesn't mean we should keep a redirect, even though redirects are cheap. Debresser (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * NO: just Redirect to Bishopp baronets -- I see nothing notable in the article's content. Cockayne's Baronetcy says he was archdeacon, which might make him notable, but I would prefer to see a citation from Crockford's clerical directory, if it goes back to the 1840s.  He seems to have been ordained in 1844, had a parish in Plymouth in 1845, quickly returned to Malta (for his health) and died in 1849: hardly a notable career.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect is fine - there's no real independent notability. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.